This is what happens when you have rules to adjudicate games, and not let the programs play out the moves.

There is of course always some unfairness in adjudication, in that you assume perfect play for engines that might neot be able to deliver that. But you could argue that with participants like these sub-optimal play would be very rare anyway.

But this is much worse. It is whet happens when you have ERRONEOUS rules to adjudicate games.The rules assume the programs are stupid and will blunder,and decide the result accordingly.

This shows how much better the WinBoard approach to tablebase adjudication is: rather than assigning a result, it would just force the engines to move practically instantly (from their own tablebase), to see what they would make of it. That achieves the desired result (namely almost instant termination of the game) without introducing artifacts.

I find this whole controversy rather silly. Because TCEC does much worse things to changes results of their tournament by design. I am sure this was an over site, but using dubious openings to force more decisive games is by design. And skews results much more than this adjudication. But let's get all bent out of shape about an oversight by TCEC._________________Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,